• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bush backs off job-creation forecast

fff

Well-known member
So the jobs didn't come as Bush promised. But the rich kept their tax cuts. And the Federal deficit kept growing.


2004
President Bush backed away Wednesday from his claim that 2.6 million jobs will be created this year, saying "there are some things we need to do" to strengthen the economy.

The retreat comes a day after two Cabinet secretaries distanced themselves from the White House Council of Economic Advisors report - - issued last week and signed by Bush -- that anticipated robust job production this year.

Democrats, eager to make the economy, job losses, and the Bush administration's credibility election issues, were quick to capitalize on Bush's embarrassing retreat.

"They don't know what they're talking about in their own economic policy," Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in Ohio, where unemployment has risen from 3.9 percent to 6 percent since Bush took office. "Today it's one thing. Tomorrow it's the next. It's the biggest say-one-thing-do-another administration in the history of the country."

Six Democratic senators, including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, called on Bush to send another economic report to Congress with another jobs forecast.

"While we hope that your projections are accurate, we are concerned that your economic report presents an unrealistic picture of the economy as the 2004 election year gets under way," the senators wrote.

Asked specifically if he still believed the economy would produce 2.6 million new jobs this year, Bush said Wednesday: "I think the economy is growing. And I think it's going to get stronger. I do think there are some things we need to do."

Bush then called for Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, pass his energy plan, open up markets for trade, reduce regulation and cap jury damage awards. Later in the day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to endorse the prediction of 2.6 million jobs, despite repeated questions from reporters.

The forecast came under special scrutiny after Treasury Secretary John Snow and Commerce Secretary Don Evans refused this week to support the optimistic prediction as they toured Western states to promote the president's economic programs.

Democrats spun the White House responses as signs of disagreement within the administration as to how the economy will perform this year and as another example of the president's promises not being met by reality. The administration's previous predictions of job creation, made as the president was pressing Congress for tax cuts, have been far off the mark.

Tim Kane, an economist and a research fellow with the Heritage Institution, a conservative think tank in Washington, said people are probably making too much out of the CEA's jobs prediction. "I think it's a little bit of cherry-picking."

Kane said the American economy has changed and statistical models do not reflect the growing number of workers who are in non-payroll jobs and are not included in Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs figures frequently cited during discussions of the economy.

"The White House should take credit for presiding over an economy that has 138.6 million working Americans, almost a million more than under Bill Clinton," Kane said. "The focus should not be on payroll jobs, but on people, and Labor Department data show that more Americans are employed than ever before."

But the Bush administration has come under intense criticism from Democrats over job creation. Bush faces the prospect of being the first president since Herbert C. Hoover to see the nation lose more jobs than it gained during his term.

So far, Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that 2.3 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. If the CEA's prediction were to come true, the president would be spared that linkage with Hoover.

For that prediction to be accurate, however, an average of 217,000 jobs would have to be created each month this year. In January, only 112,000 jobs were created, BLS figures show. The economy has lost jobs in 24 of the 37 months Bush as been in office, though there has been a net gain in new jobs in each of the past five months.

Craufurd Goodwin, an economics professor at Duke University, said he believes employers are reluctant to take on new workers in a climate of rising fuel costs and uncertain interest rates, which could rise if the federal budget deficit -- already at more than $500 billion -- continues to grow.

In such a climate, Goodwin said, making the tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress permanent might actually stifle job creation.

"People are a little dubious," Goodwin said. "People see this huge deficit and think, 'What's this going to mean for interest rates?' "

Bush administration officials have touted tax cuts as a way to stimulate economic growth and spur job creation. As he campaigns for reelection, Bush tells audiences in city after city that his tax cuts, some of which are due to expire in the next several years, led to strong economic growth and job creation. He blames the loss of jobs on recession, the Sept


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n11436722
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.

Not a glowing example of success here either.
 

fff

Well-known member
But no one that I know is touting President Carter as the saviour of the economy. On the other hand, Sandhusker and others continually repeat the CONSERVATIVE line that if you cut taxes, business will invest in themselves and create more jobs. It ain't true and we have the proof from Reagan and GW Bush to show that it's not true.

BTW, Carter did create more jobs than any president since.

Edited: Sorry, looks like Clinton did create more jobs than Carter, but neither, Reagan or either of the Bush's have matched Carter's record.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
But no one that I know is touting President Carter as the saviour of the economy. On the other hand, Sandhusker and others continually repeat the CONSERVATIVE line that if you cut taxes, business will invest in themselves and create more jobs. It ain't true and we have the proof from Reagan and GW Bush to show that it's not true.

BTW, Carter did create more jobs than any president since.

If you cut taxes, it is good for business. It's good for everybody. That is written in stone. It's your problem that you can't understand the obvious.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
But no one that I know is touting President Carter as the saviour of the economy. On the other hand, Sandhusker and others continually repeat the CONSERVATIVE line that if you cut taxes, business will invest in themselves and create more jobs. It ain't true and we have the proof from Reagan and GW Bush to show that it's not true.

BTW, Carter did create more jobs than any president since.

If you cut taxes, it is good for business. It's good for everybody. That is written in stone. It's your problem that you can't understand the obvious.

No way. Just because something is good for business doesn't mean it's good for workers or the economy. That's a major lie that especially Reagan and GW Bush's administrations have pushed for years. That you bankers and businessmen are "special." That you are responsible for jobs and a good economy and, because of that, you deserve special "perks" and aren't subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Enough of that crap. :mad: Show me the jobs, Sandhusker.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tell me, Einstein, how can companies expand, hire more people, create new products, etc.... if the money they would of used for those purposes is sent to Washington?
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Tell me, Einstein, how can companies expand, hire more people, create new products, etc.... if the money they would of used for those purposes is sent to Washington?

And you tell me, why have companies paid their CEOs millions of dollars in bonuses instead of investing in their companies and creating new jobs? Where are the jobs, Sandhusker? Insult me all you want, but you're looking pretty weak here because you can't find any job creation, in spite of the tax cuts, under the Bush Administration! And who's going to buy those products if the middle/low income people can't even afford to make their house payments?

If that money had been sent to Washington, we could have spent it on roads, bridges, dams, other infastructure that needs major repair. THAT would create jobs and help jump start the economy. But nooooo, not Bush. He gave it as tax breaks, benefiting the richest people in the country the most. We have major infastructure problems with our bridges and dams and no money to repair them. AND a huge Federal deficit. :mad:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Tell me, Einstein, how can companies expand, hire more people, create new products, etc.... if the money they would of used for those purposes is sent to Washington?

And you tell me, why have companies paid their CEOs millions of dollars in bonuses instead of investing in their companies and creating new jobs? Where are the jobs, Sandhusker? Insult me all you want, but you're looking pretty weak here because you can't find any job creation, in spite of the tax cuts, under the Bush Administration! And who's going to buy those products if the middle/low income people can't even afford to make their house payments?

If that money had been sent to Washington, we could have spent it on roads, bridges, dams, other infastructure that needs major repair. THAT would create jobs and help jump start the economy. But nooooo, not Bush. He gave it as tax breaks, benefiting the richest people in the country the most. We have major infastructure problems with our bridges and dams and no money to repair them. AND a huge Federal deficit. :mad:

fff..you're getting a little confused here. Corporations set salaries. If you want to vote against it go to the stockholders meeting. They decide how the money will be spent...not the government. And why create jobs IF your company doesn't need them?? (GM and Ford are good current examples of this). There has to be demand for your product before you can expand.

"Infrastructure" is normally a project of the State, not the natiional government. Feds will supplement sometimes but a majority of it comes from your gasoline taxes. All those WPA jobs of Roosevelt's cost money too. They gave people little more than hope and ran up a big debt at the same time. There are jobs...look at the classifieds. Maybe their not good enough for you but beats the heck out of welfare if you have any work ethic at all.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Tell me, Einstein, how can companies expand, hire more people, create new products, etc.... if the money they would of used for those purposes is sent to Washington?

And you tell me, why have companies paid their CEOs millions of dollars in bonuses instead of investing in their companies and creating new jobs? Where are the jobs, Sandhusker? Insult me all you want, but you're looking pretty weak here because you can't find any job creation, in spite of the tax cuts, under the Bush Administration! And who's going to buy those products if the middle/low income people can't even afford to make their house payments?

If that money had been sent to Washington, we could have spent it on roads, bridges, dams, other infastructure that needs major repair. THAT would create jobs and help jump start the economy. But nooooo, not Bush. He gave it as tax breaks, benefiting the richest people in the country the most. We have major infastructure problems with our bridges and dams and no money to repair them. AND a huge Federal deficit. :mad:

I repeat the question. How can one explain to you the synergies of inputs when you can't even understand the most basic concept of expenses on the bottom line? Have you ever so much as ran a lemonaid stand?
 

redrobin

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
Tell me, Einstein, how can companies expand, hire more people, create new products, etc.... if the money they would of used for those purposes is sent to Washington?

And you tell me, why have companies paid their CEOs millions of dollars in bonuses instead of investing in their companies and creating new jobs? Where are the jobs, Sandhusker? Insult me all you want, but you're looking pretty weak here because you can't find any job creation, in spite of the tax cuts, under the Bush Administration! And who's going to buy those products if the middle/low income people can't even afford to make their house payments?

If that money had been sent to Washington, we could have spent it on roads, bridges, dams, other infastructure that needs major repair. THAT would create jobs and help jump start the economy. But nooooo, not Bush. He gave it as tax breaks, benefiting the richest people in the country the most. We have major infastructure problems with our bridges and dams and no money to repair them. AND a huge Federal deficit. :mad:
Frankie, it's been 18mos. Show me the jobs???? How's that infrastructure working out for you. Liars. How about that HUGE federal deficit... :lol: :lol: What fools the democrats are to expect the American people to fall for their "plan" again this fall and reelect them.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Starting January 1, 2011 there will be a lot more rich folk's money headed to Washington. I'm sure it'll be used wisely.









:lol:
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
If Carter and Clintion created so many jobs, can you tell us whether they were private or public sector jobs!!

Obama is borrowing money on our credit card and sending it to states and municipalities to support public jobs - like police, teachers and administrators. Just who is going to pay back that debt.

Oops, I know. We are just going to inflate the debt away!!
 
Top